I fore see problems. Student suspensions would be a less accurate way to measure students’ self-control if teachers knew they’d earn a higher rating — and perhaps more money — for a lower suspension rate. High school grades are a good way to predict college and career success since they measure work ethic and motivation as well as academic learning. But grade inflation would go wild if teachers were evaluated based on their students’ grades.

Are we not observing a higher form of thinking when we see students persist with difficult tasks, such as overcoming frustration; setting and achieving goals; seeking help; working with others; and developing, managing, and perceiving their sense of self-efficacy?

Executive functioning — the brain “monitors and adjusts to circumstances to accomplish specific aims and objectives” — is a critical part of the learning process, writes Conley.

Comments

It seems to me that those “non-cognitive” abilities are developed along with the content knowledge and skills of academic content. In fact, I see them as necessary enablers of academic success beyond a fairly rudimentary level. So..just demand and enforce appropriate behavior and work effort, teach the kiddies real content and don’t allow the unable and/or unwilling to derail the endeavor.

The presentation could’ve been five minutes shorter without all the preening and recitation of her resume or the same length with some minuscule hint as to how the marvel of “grit” is actually supposed to be taught.

Although there might be a grain of insight in the video, I couldn’t even watch it. These things reek of clever people stroking the self-esteem of only just slightly less clever people in the audience. “My God, we ARE enlightened! I suspected it but you’ve just proven it!”

The measures of grit are “absenteeism, suspensions and grades?” Those are more directly influenced by the family than the teachers. Are there consequences at home for poor grades, or bad behavior in school? Do the parents have the means to make certain students show up for school?

I haven’t the patience to trod through the study today, but why is part of the argument based on people who were 8th graders in 1988, and another part on test data from 2005 – 10? Yes, the 1988 cohort are adults now, but the children in K-12 now are subject to many more, entirely different tests. “Teaching to the test” changes many things in the classroom.

Are we to add tests for “non-cognitive ability” to the tests for cognitive ability? Or are we to assume that even if Johnny can’t read at the end of 2nd grade, his teacher improved his grit? Somehow? Lacking any means to measure such an impact, how could one tell if the teacher had had a positive or negative impact?

So, how long until this is packaged (well, repackaged for the Nth time) yet again as a miracle curriculum to help struggling schools yet is shown to have no effect despite the millions of dollars spent on it?

College admissions officers are looking for non-academic, non-cognitive characteristics in order to get around the anti-affirmative action movement.
So if you have a HS semester of “grit”, you’re good.